Can "a Jewish state" be a democracy?

[eCitizen]

What myth? You're the one who has made allegation based on a weak grasp of "the facts". You have yet to demonstrate how Israel's "housing and land policies" favour Jews.

I posted a link showing that the Knesset passed on first reading the JNF Act which includes a policy that the JNF will not lease land to Arabs.

Enough said.

[eCitizen]

That he goes......tells you what you need to know.

This guy has posted a half dozen times in this thread and has yet to say anything on the topic. Is he always like this?

[eCitizen]

There is widespread opposition to Arabs selling or renting lands/properties to Jews. In fact, there is a campaign of intimidation against many Arabs (particularly in Jerusalem) who choose to rent or sell property to Jewish people. Is this indicative of discrimination against Jews in Israel?

There is a very strong movement by the Israeli right to acquire as much land as possible in Jerusalem in concert with Netenyahu's goal of a "united" Jerusalem. Arabs know well that once they sell land in Jerusalem to a Jew, there will be zero chance they would ever be able to buy it back.

In a free and open real estate market, all buyers and sellers would be on a level playing field. What is happening in Jerusalem is that you have land being sequestered by one group with the goal of eliminating the other.

[Saipan]

There is a very strong movement by the Israeli right to acquire as much land as possible in Jerusalem

Why "as much land as possible"? Jerusalem is the old Jewish city. Centuries before Islam.

[bud]

Immigration policies do not affect existing citizenry. You are trying to suggest that Israel discriminates against its non-Jewish population. Immigration policies deal with non-citizens.

wrong bob. an arab israeli citizen has very little chance of bringing a spouse into israel, whereas, if you are jewish and want to bring your foreign spouse into israel, it would be handled differently, because israel's immigration policy is discriminatory.

[DogOnPorch]

This guy has posted a half dozen times in this thread and has yet to say anything on the topic. Is he always like this?

So, is that a "No" to the question: "Did the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem work for Hitler?"

[Saipan]

wrong bob. an arab israeli citizen has very little chance of bringing a spouse into israel, whereas, if you are jewish and want to bring your foreign spouse into israel, it would be handled differently, because israel's immigration policy is discriminatory.

The whole Middle East land distribution is discriminatory.

Look how much do Jews really have as compared to Arabs. You are allowed magnifying glass.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/maproom/mideast.gif

[jbg]

wrong bob. an arab israeli citizen has very little chance of bringing a spouse into israel, whereas, if you are jewish and want to bring your foreign spouse into israel, it would be handled differently, because israel's immigration policy is discriminatory.

There are plenty of Arab countries where the Arab Israeli would be welcome; not so many for the Jewish spouse. But you consider Israel to be illegitimate, and knew that.

[Bob]

It is immigration, at the end of the day. You can dress it up in whatever fancy words you want, but it is immigration, the same as if I moved to Britain it would be immigration. I am at least as connected to the Isles as most Jews are to Israel. That is, however, mostly a semantic point.

Anyway, I think the more pressing problem is not discrimination in immigration per se, but discrimination in growth. From what I have read in Ha'aretz, which I read often, is that it is extraordinarily difficult for an Arab to get a building permit, which I can imagine would have serious repercussions in the long run for the growth of population and industry, and for the decline of health and well-being. Being able to buy land is fine and dandy, but if you cannot put anything on it, what is the point? Perhaps you could speak to this aspect of affairs.

The rhetoric of "Arabs can't get a building permit" is just that - rhetoric. Yes, statistics will be provided about the number of requests/applications submitted by Arabs, and the proportion of them rejected. They may even provide statistics regarding the amount of requests/applications submitted by Jews, and the proportion of them rejected. But can you really understand the full context without understanding the regulations, seeing the requests/applications, and the details of the rejections - and then comparing them to the request/applications and details of associated rejections from the other side? Haaretz will never, ever go into these details. Neither will any "civil rights" or "human rights" organization that advances the same false claims about discrimination in the system of distribution of building permits. This "discrimination of growth" statement is just absolutely ridiculous. It really sounds like an Al-Jazeera talking point.

It's a related story, and another one of great complexity, but eventually I will provide some details about the vast amount of illegal construction that has been going on for decades in certain Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem.

[Bob]

I posted a link showing that the Knesset passed on first reading the JNF Act which includes a policy that the JNF will not lease land to Arabs.

Enough said.

The JNF is a largely a private organization that can set its own parameters for who it wants to sell or lease land to. It does not support your false assertion of "discriminatory land polices". The JNF owns little-to-no land in urban areas. There is no shortage of land available in Israel owned by private individuals/organizations of the ILA from whom anyone can buy or sell. Moreover, why do you make no mention of Arab prejudice that prevents sale or renting to Jews? This is true in many Arab villages in Israel. Although less relevant, the sale of land to a Jew is punishable by death in Palestinian-administered lands in the West Bank. It's unimportant in the sense that Jews are not trying to move there, but is quite telling of prevalent anti-Semitism among Arabs that you ove to ignore.

[Bob]

Here is an Al Jazeera online item on this subject Can equality exist in the Jewish state?

Note the comments regarding the advantages of serving in the military.

If the advantages are so great, then they should serve in the military - nothing is stopping them from doing so. They choose not to. And of the extremely small number of Arabs that do serve, they fear ostracization and other repercussions from their communities. At the end of the day, they're free to enlist, and choose not to do so. The alleged discrimination Arabs face as a result of not doing their national service (which may or may not mean military service) is avoidable.

[Bob]

wrong bob. an arab israeli citizen has very little chance of bringing a spouse into israel, whereas, if you are jewish and want to bring your foreign spouse into israel, it would be handled differently, because israel's immigration policy is discriminatory.

Says who? Says you? Israel has provisions for family reunification purposes. Unfortunately, it's often been abused for terrorist purposes.

[eCitizen]

Here is an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent detailing the inside story of the Hamas/Fatah agreement. Note that part of the agreement involves Hamas pledging not to fire any more rockets at Israel. Since the agreement, no rockets have fallen to my knowledge.

Revealed: the untold story of the deal that shocked the Middle East

Fisk has been reporting on the Middle East for some 30 years. He has written many well reviewed books, including Pity The Nation which describes the Lebanese civil war, invasion and occupation of Lebanon by Israel in the 1980s, and the birth of Hamas. While writing Pity the Nation, Fisk lived in Beirut and watched events unfold.

[bud]

The whole Middle East land distribution is discriminatory.

Look how much do Jews really have as compared to Arabs. You are allowed magnifying glass.

http://www.mideastinfo.com/maproom/mideast.gif

There are plenty of Arab countries where the Arab Israeli would be welcome; not so many for the Jewish spouse. But you consider Israel to be illegitimate, and knew that.

as soon as there is any criticism of israel's discrimination of palestinians, you try to compare and thus lower israel's standards to the arab countries. by lowering israel's standards, you're confirming that israel is not a true democracy and that it discriminates against its arab citizens.

[Bonam]

Israel's reason for existence is to be a Jewish state. If it has to do certain things a bit differently than generic western democracies in order to preserve its character as a Jewish state, than that's what it has to do, and so be it. In fact, some western nations would do well to take a few lessons from Israel before their own demographics become irreversibly Muslim. Israel's immigration laws are not unlike those of several other nations, which give preference to people who have ancestry from or connections with that nation. Arabs in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in most other Arab countries, and furthermore are free to emigrate if they would prefer to live elsewhere.

[bud]

Israel's reason for existence is to be a Jewish state. If it has to do certain things a bit differently than generic western democracies in order to preserve its character as a Jewish state,

all hitler wanted to do was to preserve the german character. can you believe some people supported the idea of ethnically cleansing germany?

[Saipan]

you try to compare and thus lower israel's standards to the arab countries.

Nope. There's absolutely NO comparison whatsoever.

[Saipan]

all hitler wanted to do was to preserve the german character. can you believe some people supported the idea of ethnically cleansing germany?

No, he wanted to "cleanse" the whole world. Invade and occupy ALL other countries.

Unlike British who only wanted to invade, occupy and collect.

[Bonam]

all hitler wanted to do was to preserve the german character.

An infantile comparison. If Hitler had confined himself to adjusting a few "immigration policies and land laws", no one would have complained. Unfortunately for everyone, he employed rather more extreme measures. That, and he wanted to conquer a good chunk of the world.

[DogOnPorch]

all hitler wanted to do was to preserve the german character.

...and Eichmann just wanted the trains to run on time. Preserve the German character...lol.

[Remiel]

Israel's reason for existence is to be a Jewish state. If it has to do certain things a bit differently than generic western democracies in order to preserve its character as a Jewish state, than that's what it has to do, and so be it. In fact, some western nations would do well to take a few lessons from Israel before their own demographics become irreversibly Muslim. Israel's immigration laws are not unlike those of several other nations, which give preference to people who have ancestry from or connections with that nation. Arabs in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in most other Arab countries, and furthermore are free to emigrate if they would prefer to live elsewhere.

Good points, but they are not iron clad by any means.

If, for instance, Scotland were to secede from the United Kingdom, their reason for existence would presumably be similar in concept: to be a Scottish state. If, however, they were to then turn around and kick out a significant portion of Lowlanders on the claim that they must " preserve Scotland's Scottish character " (the insinuation of course being that some Lowlanders might not be Scottish enough), I think we should all be well advised to be highly suspicious. And though there obviously does not exist the same degree of bad history for Scots as their does for Jews, it is not that controversial I think that, historically, Scotland was treated poorly by the English.

On the issue of imigration laws, you are right, but then again it is a qualified sort of right. Ancestry laws for most countries are for connections to relevantly recent people and who lived in states that were more or less continuous with the current ones. Jewish claims to Israel, from the ethic/religious angle (leaving aside for a moment the political angle, which is somewhat valid), are rather like the claims of modern day folks to being "druids". Yes, there were such a thing as druids, historically; and yes, the modern day version probably draw most of their ancestors from the Isles, and maybe even have some of the same traditions. But to infer from those facts that modern day "druids" are the legitimate successors to the druids of yore (in the legal sense; obviously the Israel case is somewhat different in that modern Jews are most definitely legitimately Jewish), and to infer they have some primal religious connection to the Isles that entitles them to some sort of state considerations, is simply ludicrous. The modern state of Israel is not a continuation of the historical kingdoms of the Jews. It is a revisionist revival (and I do not mean "revisionist" pejoratively here by any means, but merely as a statement of fact).

[Bonam]

Good points, but they are not iron clad by any means.

If, for instance, Scotland were to secede from the United Kingdom, their reason for existence would presumably be similar in concept: to be a Scottish state. If, however, they were to then turn around and kick out a significant portion of Lowlanders on the claim that they must " preserve Scotland's Scottish character " (the insinuation of course being that some Lowlanders might not be Scottish enough), I think we should all be well advised to be highly suspicious. And though there obviously does not exist the same degree of bad history for Scots as their does for Jews, it is not that controversial I think that, historically, Scotland was treated poorly by the English.

And, indeed, if Israel decided to drive off much of its Arab population today, you might have reason to be "highly suspicious". However, they are not doing that. Now, some might point to 1948, but the events of that year need to be viewed in their proper context, the Arabs were waging a genocidal war to eradicate Israel, and the world had just emerged from under the pall of one the darkest times in human history. And, even so, few if any Arabs were forcefully removed from Israel at that time (many left by the urging of their leaders or out of fear). Therefore, you cannot liken the Israeli situation to "kicking out the Lowlanders".

On the issue of imigration laws, you are right, but then again it is a qualified sort of right. Ancestry laws for most countries are for connections to relevantly recent people and who lived in states that were more or less continuous with the current ones.

The precise nature of the laws is not of relevance, the way I see it. Nations discriminate for purposes of immigration based on ethnicity, ancestry, and national origin all the time. The unchallenged existence of such laws in western democracies, including our friendly neighbor to the south, suggests that such laws are acceptable to western people. In a strict sense, they are doubtless discriminatory, as they afford extra privileges to certain individuals based solely on their ancestral origin, which is essentially equivalent to ethnicity, and in less politically correct times would be called "race". If "discriminatory" immigration laws of this nature are acceptable, than Israel's too is acceptable. The fact that some nations might choose to discriminate based on recently provable ancestors and others based on less certain claims or even self-identification is a technical distinction, not a moral one.

Additionally, my view on the topic is that immigration is by nature discriminatory. It is not an equal opportunity enterprise. Countries recruit immigrants that they want, whether they judge them by their ethnoreligious identity, by their economic class, by their type and level of education, by their proficiency at specified languages, by their gender, or any other criteria. It is not beholden of a country to uniformly accept any person that wishes to immigrate there, and a country can develop any kind of immigration policy that it wants without this being a violation of human rights. Immigrating to a country is a choice and a privilege, not a right. Therefore, by denying immigration to certain individuals, a country is not violating their rights in any way whatsoever.

Jewish claims to Israel, from the ethic/religious angle (leaving aside for a moment the political angle, which is somewhat valid), are rather like the claims of modern day folks to being "druids". Yes, there were such a thing as druids, historically; and yes, the modern day version probably draw most of their ancestors from the Isles, and maybe even have some of the same traditions. But to infer from those facts that modern day "druids" are the legitimate successors to the druids of yore (in the legal sense; obviously the Israel case is somewhat different in that modern Jews are most definitely legitimately Jewish), and to infer they have some primal religious connection to the Isles that entitles them to some sort of state considerations, is simply ludicrous. The modern state of Israel is not a continuation of the historical kingdoms of the Jews. It is a revisionist revival (and I do not mean "revisionist" pejoratively here by any means, but merely as a statement of fact).

The validity of the claims of a certain individual to belong to a certain group that is given specific privileges for the purposes of immigration need only be judged by the authority responsible for deciding whether that person is eligible to immigrate. That is, why should we care whether or not Israel expedites immigration for people who self-identify as Jewish, regardless of the level of evidence that these people may have to actually being descended from ancient Israelites? If the US wants to offer special immigration benefits to people from Haiti, why is that wrong?

Edited June 7, 2011 by Bonam

[Saipan]

Good points, but they are not iron clad by any means.

If, for instance, Scotland were to secede from the United Kingdom, their reason for existence would presumably be similar in concept: to be a Scottish state. If, however, they were to then turn around and kick out a significant portion of Lowlanders

When were they kicked out?

[Remiel]

The validity of the claims of a certain individual to belong to a certain group that is given specific privileges for the purposes of immigration need only be judged by the authority responsible for deciding whether that person is eligible to immigrate. That is, why should we care whether or not Israel expedites immigration for people who self-identify as Jewish, regardless of the level of evidence that these people may have to actually being descended from ancient Israelites? If the US wants to offer special immigration benefits to people from Haiti, why is that wrong?

Honestly I think you could make a better analogy that lies closer to home. One could, I believe, make a valid argument that people who identify as Cajun should have a preferrential claim to immigration to Canada than that of the average immigrant. The question then becomes is there some fundamental difference between how Canada may set immigration policy and how Israel does.

I think this is a kind of "all others thing being equal" scenario. All other things being equal, the US can discriminate in favour of people from Haiti if they like. This is because, however, it seems that all other things are in fact equal: who could make an argument that they are more entitled to American citizen ship that a Haitian? They might suggest that they have been discriminated against in favour of a Haitian, but they could not argue that they have intrinsically any more right to immigrate to the United States than a Haitian.

In the Canadian and the Israeli cases, however, all other things are not equal. There do exist people who can claim to deserve extra consideration from Canada and Israel. This is somewhat more cogent in the Israel case because about 260,000 Arab refugees are alive today who were alive in 1948, whereas in the Canadian case, unless there really is a fountain of Youth somewhere in the everglades or the bayou, there are no original Acadians in Louisiana. Israel may be entitled to prefer Jews to anyone else, all other things being equal. But all other things are not equal.

In the Canadian case, if someone were to suggest a law that would give a preference of some sort to Cajuns, I might think it would be a waste of time because Cajuns identify very strongly with Louisiana and the Southern United States now, but I think I would think that the rhetorical basis for such a distinction would be credible.

Maybe that is all crazy talk though...

[Bonam]

In the Canadian and the Israeli cases, however, all other things are not equal. There do exist people who can claim to deserve extra consideration from Canada and Israel. This is somewhat more cogent in the Israel case because about 260,000 Arab refugees are alive today who were alive in 1948, whereas in the Canadian case, unless there really is a fountain of Youth somewhere in the everglades or the bayou, there are no original Acadians in Louisiana.

From this point of view, all Israel needs to do is wait another 40 years or so, and the issue will no longer be "cogent" there either. Also, many of these 260,000 individuals left by choice. Why should they be owed immigration benefits now?

who could make an argument that they are more entitled to American citizen ship that a Haitian?

How about someone that speaks English? Someone that's currently living in the US but is unable to apply for immigrant status? Someone that has a spouse who is a legal permanent resident of the US but is prevented from immigrating to the US by multi-year visa processing backlogs?

Edited June 7, 2011 by Bonam